Mar. 7, 2019
Los Angeles Kings
Posts per Day
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>T0R</b></div><div>I seriously don’t understand what is so far fetched here, Roy is an expiring UFA with 1 year left & so is Brodie, 1.575 is literal peanuts to retain. Brodie can play Left or Right & is a premier Shutdown RD, his defensive metrics are phenomenal & he again has 1 year left while fitting an express need for the Kings at LD.
Also according to every graph or piece of data in existence, MATT ROY IS NOT BETTER DEFENSIVELY THAN TJ BRODIE
Why is this so far fetched?, It makes sense both ways & you can most likely sign Roy after the Year is up so why are you so upset, Leafs can go trade for a guy like McCabe at 50% if your panties are in that massive of a bunch from this, I believe several teams will be interested in Brodie if he were to hit the market so it’s a matter of finding a suitor & getting a cheaper rental D-man back in the 2-3 mil range</div></div>
Go ahead and trade for Jake McCabe then, that's no skin off my back. I just simply pointed out why the Kings wouldn't do it from their point of view.
I'm at work, so I'm trying to look up some evolving hockey graphs to compare stats and it's going slow. My opinion on Roy being better is admittedly off of the eye-ball test as opposed to factual data. I'm curious to see what the numbers look like, with the automatic caveat that Toronto is a much better team than LA currently, so their numbers are going to look better overall.
Outside of the "better" argument, the other points are factual. Roy is younger, more cost effective, and actually healthy. All reasons why he currently would have more value, and especially reasons why the Kings wouldn't retain just to help Toronto fit in a player so they could be harder to beat. That's not how teams operate.
I'll give you that Brodie's a lefty and the Kings need a lefty. But they aren't trading Roy for him. If Brodie gets healthy and shows he's still playing up to a certain standard, maybe the Kings would entertain Sean Walker for him 1-for-1, no retention anywhere, if none of their other options pan out. That's the best you're getting from LA.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Neptune12</b></div><div>I understand your way of thinking and how good it would be for your team to do that swap, However This season Sanderson established himself as a very good top 4 D while Clarke still needs to prove it. Ottawa would fix the RD issue they have but would open up another issue on the Left side. so
1. Sanderson has more value than Clarke at the moment because he's proven.
2. The Sens would create a new hole in their lineup.
3. I don't think you want to do that RD are the most valuable assets in the league rn You should hold onto him.
4. Clarke is a stud and you might regret that in a couple years. He's from Ottawa every NHL player from Ottawa turns into a stud the Level of hockey here is unparalleled. Just look at Mctavish those 2 are the same age and both played AAA hockey in the region.
5. Because Clarke isn't established as a full time nhler I could see PD asking for a second asset in return.</div></div>
2) That's kind of what I was trying to figure out and it's good to hear from a fan who follows the fanbase. The word I've read is Dorion is looking for a RD. I don't know how true that is, and I also didn't know how much of a hole would be created with Sanderson being moved since Chabot is still an absolute stud that is only 25.
3) At some point the Kings will need to trade from a position of strength. With Doughty, Roy, Walker, Spence, Durzi and Grans, RD is the area of strength. Clarke is the best prospect among them, but would be worth moving if a guy of Sanderson's caliber came back. And since both are extremely highly touted...... I figured Clarke's name would be the only one worth mentioning if bringing up Sanderson.
4) Agreed, I'm really looking forward to Clarke's development.
5) Yeah, I agree. Trades like this are so hard to imagine and price out, but there would absolutely need to be something else going to Ottawa simply due to current status. They aren't TOO far apart in my opinion, but Sanderson is the more valuable for sure.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>csick</b></div><div>The thing that I want to tell you is that you’re wasting prospects in the minors anyways. Once a forward reaches like 22 and a Dman like 23 and they’re still not in the AHL , they start to lose value. So guys Kupari, ****emo, JAD, Turcotte (soon), etc their time is now. You’re already stacked on forwards and on D as well.
Let’s assume you keep everyone except Walker next year on D. That leaves Anderson, Doughty , Durzi, Spence, Clarke, Bjornfot, Roy, you could even get a 3LD in free agency. Subbing one of your D for Chychrun at the expense of a forward prospect that doesn’t have room to play and a 1st isnt a big ask. You just can’t keep all your prospects , eventually you gotta do a big deal. And the time is now for LA to do that</div></div>
I don't necessarily disagree with the thought process. One of my most vocal gripes with LA has been that it takes them FOREVER to churn out prospects, and even when they are ready Blake blocks their progress with tweeners like Lizotte, Lemieux, Grundstrom, and even to an extent Arvidsson. Their development process is slow to the point of detrimental. However, teams like the Rangers are on the opposite side of the spectrum. I wish LA would find a nice middle ground.
I also don't necessarily agree with "the time is now", however. As seen by their goaltending, LA isn't just a Chychrun away from contending for the Cup. There are holes on this roster and just moving big pieces because they are getting close to 22/23 might not be the smartest move.
And by the way, I appreciate the candid conversation. This is exactly what I was hoping for.